Return to Sanity: August 2014

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Friday, August 29, 2014

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran
By Doug Patton

First, Newsweek pulled a Dan Rather on us, running a fabricated story just because they wanted it to be true. They told the world that an American guard at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center had ripped pages from a prisoner's Koran and flushed it down a toilet. As a result, innocent people died when practitioners of Islam rioted in protest in Afghanistan.

Oops, said Newsweek, it seems we can't back up our story. Oh well, it's probably true; we just can't prove it. (Isn't it convenient for Newsweek that the media now have "Deep Throat" to talk about so they can revel in their glory days and divert our attention from their criminal negligence.)

The lie heard round the world about the flushed Koran has caused convulsions in the Bush Administration and forced the Pentagon to launch an investigation of unfounded allegations contained in an unsubstantiated story. The results of said investigation are now in, and it seems there are at least five incidents of "mishandling" of the Koran at Gitmo.

Well, guess what? I don't care!

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it -- I don't care!

Monday, August 25, 2014

'No Justice No Peace': Riots to Follow

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Leann Horrocks

"No Justice, No Peace" is one of a family of phrases that are the favored tools of the rabble rouser. Here's a look at how it works:

The slogan "No Justice No Peace" has a rich history of use by demonstrators of many stripes, both in England by the "chanting classes" and in the U.S. It never seems to signal any good news; as Thomas Sowell notes, "The slogan 'No Justice, no peace' has been used to justify settling legal issues on the streets, instead of in courts of law." I disagree -- I don't think anyone is trying to settle anything; they are trying to keep a bad thing alive.
We hear it again in Ferguson, Missouri and it might be a good idea to analyze what "No Justice, No Peace" means in this case, as it does so often lately.

The idea of "justice" involves the concepts of fairness and retribution. Fairness is largely in the eye of the beholder. Angry shouters of this phrase have a good idea of what unfairness has befallen them. Fairness involves both a perpetrator and a victim and is one of the muddiest concepts in any language. The phrase is unsuited to clarity, but is well suited to gathering in aggrieved parties, each with their own interpretation of the offense involved.

Justice also carries a heavy inference of retribution. Even though the original intent may be a reasonable request for retribution on a holistic scale, it quickly morphs into a manic drive for revenge on a very personal level. Again we see a mushy concept that serves as a dragnet for the disgruntled of every degree. Demonstrators purport to say "we want retribution for so and so...", but what they really mean is "I want revenge that satisfies me." Young men in Ferguson, running from a beauty supply store with arms full of expensive hair extensions, are not worried about Michael Brown; an eruption of righteous-sounding activity has given them the green light to steal from their neighbors.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Just What Is an Unarmed Man?

Much of black America and the liberal media are making a huge issue of the Ferguson shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. We are being treated to endless live reports of rioting and looting, some of them detailing inflows of black and leftist agitators from around the country to keep the Ferguson opportunity hot and in full media focus. All of this comes out of a neighborhood shooting where, if the parties involved had their races reversed, the incident would have been merely local.

But what amazes me is the justification for all this upheaval: that a white police officer shot an unarmed black youth. I’m a white man who many decades ago was a military policeman – one who had frequent encounters with unarmed young black soldiers who all too frequently vigorously resisted arrest. Except that they weren’t unarmed for the simple reason that they were young and strong and possessed quick fighting reflexes honed on the hard streets where they were raised. Quite often they were larger than me or my partner, who also quite often was black – not that this racial relationship often meant anything at all to the perps we were trying to detain. And once detained, their usual fate was that we took them back to Fort Campbell and released them in the parking lots of their barracks without filing charges. It was not our mission to bring young soldiers more grief; the lives of enlisted soldiers were already hard enough back in the late '50s. What we did try to do was to save them from their own bad actions.

But occasionally we did come upon a subject whose size and aggressive militancy required stronger measures, such as the judicious application of a nightstick. In those situations, did I ever fear for my life? Damned straight I did. Facing a much larger man, both in height and weight, who is determined not to be detained, you are praying that he’ll come to his senses and submit to arrest. Your gun is there at your side, but that is the last thing you want to introduce into such an encounter. But – and that is a very large but – that call is his.

And that is where I have tried to place myself in that officer’s situation in Ferguson.

The officer has a seriously damaged eye from a very hard, crushing shot from a very large fist. That indicates that the perp in this situation had the opportunity to throw at least one clearly damaging punch at the officer and effectively connect before the officer even could exit his vehicle. The severity of the damage to the officer’s eye and cheekbone indicates what could be expected from a sucker-punch from a 6’4” almost 300-pound assailant. And because I’ve been there and done that as a young man, there lies my problem with this media meme of the assailant being unarmed. The shoulders and arms of a 6’4” 300-pound man driving a large clinched fist render that fist a lethal weapon. Ask anyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of one. People are regularly beaten to death all around the world by such fists. Add to that the widespread availability of martial arts training in today’s society, and you can never be sure that any human you go up against doesn’t possess the ability to kill you with his bare hands, regardless of size.

And that, folks, constitutes a deadly threat against one’s person, which in most states nowadays justifies a deadly, defensive counter-response, whether you be a civilian or a law enforcement officer. Confronted by such a threat from any person – black white, brown, whatever – I’m going to defend myself with whatever means I have. If that means is a handgun, then I will discharge that handgun into that large oncoming mass, and I will continue to discharge that handgun until that large threatening mass is no longer oncoming and is very decidedly unthreatening. If that means dead, so be it, no matter how many times his family assures me he was a “good boy.”
Now, I ask you, what is not commonsense about that?

So, those of you so quick to condemn this Ferguson police officer for shooting an unarmed man might want to put yourselves in that scenario and wonder just what you might do with an exceptionally large, very angry, violently threatening man charging toward you with unknown intentions – plus the certain ability, by virtue of his size, to do you grave injury, even to beat you to death with nothing more than his large, hard fists.
Again I ask: just what is an unarmed man?

Articles: Just What Is an Unarmed Man?

Friday, August 22, 2014

Friday Funnies

Thursday, August 21, 2014

FERGUSON AND THE REAL RACE WAR

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Hump Day Hunnies

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

How’s That Democracy Working Out For You? -

By Ed Mattson, originally published at Veterans Today.

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” ― James Bovard

Am I the only one in America bothered by those who clamor for more freebies from government; for the government’s promise of care from cradle to grave; for government’s demand we have a minimum wage while they reward themselves with salaries greater than 6 times the wages of most Americans; and that anyone in their right mind would believe that government is really looking out for the wellbeing of the downtrodden and oppressed population in America?

Am I the only one who sees that the U.S. has sent 2.7 million of our nation’s youth off to war never to return with the notion of defending freedom and liberty around the world? Yes, that’s the death toll we have invested in defeating Nazism, fascism, Marxism, communism, tyrants and dictators to keep our country and the rest of the world free.

Over the course of the last century our politicians have been steering us right down the path to a political system that would make Karl Marx proud, stripping away the freedom and liberty that made America the greatest nation on earth.

The proof is right in front of our eyes, yet We the People, don’t seem to see it. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or whether you are one of the mindless fools that just don’t give a rat’s behind about politics, we march aimlessly along letting the Washington politicians have their way with us much in the same manner as the career prison inmate treats “the new prisoner on the cell block”.

Those like myself and other writers who point out the obvious problems we see with the relationship between the people and government are, like the messenger, quickly brought under the gun by those who may disagree, who will do almost anything, say anything, in scathing personal attacks, rather than debate such subject on their merits.

What About Democracies and Republics?

The most misunderstood words in the dictionary I am afraid, is the word Democracy followed closely by Republic. Hitler used the words freely, as did Mussolini, those who ruled the Soviet Union, Mao, Kim Jung Il, and countless others along with every firebrand politician we see in American politics today. We even have countries that have adopted the word republic, democratic or democracy in their names:

People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Korea, North – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Laos – Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

“More than 1.6 billion people — 23 percent of the world’s population — have no say in how they are governed and face severe consequences if they try to exercise their most basic rights, such as expressing their views, assembling peacefully, and organizing independently of the state. Citizens who dare to assert their rights in these repressive countries typically suffer harassment and imprisonment, and often are subjected to physical or psychological abuse. In these countries, state control over public life is pervasive, and individuals have little if any recourse to justice for crimes the state commits against them.”

Looking at the above list of countries, I for one would not relish the idea of having to live in any of those countries, but it is interesting that they chose to use the words we Americans have always cherished in the title of their countries’ names. And even scarier, the U.S. seems to be abandoning the very principles of freedom and liberty that were so eloquently described in our Declaration Of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

I believe it is highly unlikely that those living in such countries really sought out to live their lives under the rule of tyranny and oppression, which has been borne out by the numbers of those who have either successfully fled or have been killed trying to escape.

New Citizens recite the US Pledge of Allegiance, 2014

But here we are today, a country which our citizens proudly proclaim is a beacon of liberty and freedom, without hardly understanding the meaning of the words anymore. A large number of our population do not recognize what has happened and is continuing to happen to the freedom they think they have.

Those who have immigrated to the U.S. during the last half century recognize the changes that have occurred under the rule of liberal-progressives, for them it has become a matter of our country following the path of the governments they fled for a better life. Most shake their heads in bewilderment.

Countries that have chosen to bastardize the words Democracy and Republic really believe they are fooling the world. The United Nations, is probably the most gullible of the lot, and have exhibited some of the best examples of stupidity known to man.

The members of the UN Security Council include China and Russia among the five permanent members, and The Soviet Union (later Russia) has used its “No” voting power 119 times, more than the other permanent members of the Security Council, to stand-up against global conflict. If fact, Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and China’s adventures along the border with India and in the South China Sea today, are part of the many global conflicts that could easily escalate into major wars.

The UN has be a dismal failure as well on the issue of human rights. Development cannot take hold in the face of political repression that thwarts fundamental freedoms. Similarly, addressing human rights is central to ending the cycle of violations and violence that threatens peace and triggers conflict, however it appears the membership of the UN, all 193 member countries, will probably never see eye to eye on what would consist of meaningful human rights.

Some think that Saudi Arabia is in need of gender equalizing

Do some ME countries need to consider gender equalizing?

This would definitely hold true in Muslim countries where women are treated as property, with fewer rights than the family livestock, and in countries governed by tyrants, thugs and dictators. It is almost laughable as countries that do hold seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council have imprisoned people in 2013 under laws that restrict religious freedom (Morocco ,India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Libya and South Korea); and we don’t really have to go into the area of homosexuality rights being violated.

“Making Saudi Arabia a world judge on women’s rights and religious freedom would be like naming a pyromaniac as the town fire chief.” – Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch
So we have countries sitting in judgment of other countries using double standards, which have always accompanied international human rights protection since the world took note… it involves asking States to monitor the human rights violations they themselves have committed, by action or omission. The Commission on Human Rights is an empty one.

The fact that the political environment within the Council corresponds to the reality of international relations in recent years while relevant, may be molded to fit the dominant political will of the time. It is natural to conclude that the way in which the Council will be remembered in history will depend, ultimately, on the evolution of politics and international relations in the years to come, but today seems to belong on the dung-heap of political waste.

Getting back to those dynamic words, Democracy and Republic. They’re probably not but a handful of citizens today who can adequately describe they type of government we have in the U.S. today. Most will tell you we have a democracy, which in fact is not true. The Founding Fathers gave us a Representative Democratic Republic…and that’s a fact. This is far different than a democracy.

Majority Rules – The Devil’s in the Details

In a democracy, the majority rules. That all sounds good when you are in the majority. What if the majority wanted to exterminate all people with handicaps, or all people of opposing political view. That might be okay with you if you didn’t have any apparent handicap or you were on the side of the political majority, but probably not so welcomed by those in the minority.

On the other hand, a Republic is by rule of law wherein the rights of minorities are to be protected…at least it was that way when our country was founded. As you look around today, you can see that concept headed for the exit door.

Our politicians today use the word Democracy and Republic as cover while they whittle away our rights which are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

The government has been indoctrinating our children through their takeover of the public schools, and vigorously oppose home schooling, charter schools, and competition in education. This is the tactic of tyrants and thugs and has been used effectively by many dictatorial regimes in history. They use unearned entitlements to gain more control over our lives which diminish our freedoms and we don’t even see it happening because it has been happening so gradually.

Those of us who are paying attention get it. We see that we are no longer free with the liberties we once had. The liberal progressives call us neo cons, stupid, and a whole lot more. For those with such thoughts, I ask you to consider the following list of freedoms you think you have…

Private Property Rights: Do you really own your home; can you really build what you want on your property; or will you lose your home if you don’t pay your property taxes and then what if the EPA says you can’t build because of some creature living on your property you never heard of before. Your property can be confiscated at the drop of a hat, often without judicial review by any number of government agencies including the Department of Justice, IRS, EPA, and so forth.
We are closer than you think to rule by Marxist philosophy which insures mediocrity to all but a handful of ruling class (politicians). Karl Marx said, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Have you examined the 900,000+ pages of the IRS tax code lately?
We have free education for all children in public schools. Unfortunately this is not free education. We pay an exorbitant amount in taxes (about $150,000/child from grades K-12), more than any other nation on earth. It is also not free to allow local states to teach that which best suits the needs of their citizens. Schools have become indoctrination into a government philosophy to not question authority, not study the relevance of history, and not learning the elements of free market capitalism. Schools today teach the citizen is subservient to the government.
Government control over the means of transport. We have multiple agencies – federal and state bureaus regulating what we drive, how fast we drive, the fuel economy of our vehicles, the fuel we put into our vehicles, and often having to pay a toll to drive certain roads and highways as well as having to pay for licensing of our vehicles. We have Amtrak, public transportation and the regulated auto industry including how our vehicles are made and even partial government ownership of the manufacturing process after the financial collapse of 2008-2009.
We have government control over communication…FCC, telephones, and the Internet coming soon to your doorstep, all the while the NSA is monitoring your emails and phone calls. Mail is also controlled by the US Post Office and is not open for competitive mail delivery by private companies.
After the wealthy families have all but established their families with generations of wealth passed on, we now see those in power seizing our rights of inheritance through the Internal Revenue estate tax. This is the philosophy that all wealth today belongs to the government.
The government controls the credit market through the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not Federal, is not a “bank” in the terms we all recognize as a bank, and does so as an exclusive monopoly without Congressional Oversight. They have the exclusive right to pick and chose winners, in what was supposed to be a free market economy.
The government has centralized community planning and controls where we build, how we build and what we can build, through multiple layers of rules, regulations, user fees, and taxes. The government even has the ability to govern your hours of operation through exclusive rights to regulate utilities, and build and maintain streets and roads to access your business and homes.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” ― Winston Churchill

About Ed Mattson:
Following his service in the Marine Corps Ed Mattson built a diverse career in business in both sales and marketing and management. He is a published author and medical research specialist. He is currently Development Director of the National Guard Bureau of International Affairs-State Partnership Program, Fundraising Coordinator for the Warrior2Citizen Project, and Managing Partner of Center-Point Consultants in North Carolina. Mr. Mattson is a noted speaker and has addressed more than 3000 audiences in 42 states and 5 foreign countries. He has been awarded the Order of the Sword by American Cancer Society, is a Rotarian Paul Harris Fellow and appeared on more than 15 radio and television talk-shows.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Problems in Ferguson

Mark Steyn penned and excellent piece about the problems in Ferguson, MO, over at site
SteynOnline. Following are a few excerpts from this article (link to the full story at then end).

The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.

Indeed. To camouflage oneself in the jungles of suburban America, one should be clothed in Dunkin' Donuts and Taco Bell packaging. A soldier wears green camo in Vietnam to blend in. A policeman wears green camo in Ferguson to stand out - to let you guys know: We're here, we're severe, get used to it.

So, when the police are dressed like combat troops, it's not a fashion faux pas, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are. Forget the armored vehicles with the gun turrets, forget the faceless, helmeted, anonymous Robocops, and just listen to how these "policemen" talk. Look at the video as they're arresting the New York Times and Huffington Post reporters. Watch the St Louis County deputy ordering everyone to leave, and then adding: "This is not up for discussion."